MUSLIMS ADDRESS TERRORISM IN NATIONAL AD CAMPAIGN CAIR ad says terrorism is "not condoned by Islam or any other religion"

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/7/03) - The issue of religiously-motivated terrorism will be addressed in the fourth installment of a national advertising campaign designed to foster greater understanding of Islam and to counter what ad sponsors say is a rising tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric in the United States.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group, launched the year-long "Islam in America" campaign February 16 with an ad on the New York Times editorial page.

The first three ads featured examples of ethnic diversity in the American Muslim community, a Muslim Girl Scout troop in California and a Muslim woman explaining why modest Islamic attire is both liberating and empowering.

The text of the latest CAIR ad reads:

"Over the course of history, many religions have fallen victim to violent interpretations.

"The texts and teachings of all faiths are vulnerable to manipulation and abuse by violent extremists. Terrorism is a tactic employed by deluded individuals or groups to advance an ideological or political cause. It is not condoned by Islam or any other religion.

"American Muslims condemn all acts of terrorism and we are as outraged as our fellow Americans by atrocities committed in the name of God and our religion.

"Islam, Christianity, Judaism and many other faiths share the basic values necessary to create a world where tolerance and peace prevail. We have an opportunity to build bridges between our faiths and challenge those who attempt to repeat history by dividing humanity along religious and ethnic lines.

"It's up to people of conscience to seek and embrace the truth."

"We often hear that Muslims have not condemned terrorism enough since the 9/11 attacks. This advertisement is designed to address that issue and show clearly Islam's and the American Muslim community's strong opposition to acts of violence against civilians, whether they are committed by individuals, groups or states," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.

Awad noted that the ad's message is consistent with the long-standing and repeated condemnation of terrorism by all major American Muslim organizations.

The weekly CAIR ads, each explaining one aspect of Islam, are being distributed to Muslim communities around America for placement in local newspapers. All the advertisements previously published in the New York Times are available at: http://www.americanmuslims.info/archive.asp

CAIR is America's largest Islamic civil liberties group. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has 15 regional offices nationwide and in Canada. Since its founding in 1994, CAIR has defended the civil and religious rights of all Americans.

I could spend all night with one liners pointing out that tremendous quantities of evil in the world are committed in the NAME of Islam. All other religions combined cannot come close the total quantity of mayhem caused by Islam DAILY.

"We often hear that Muslims have not condemned terrorism enough since the 9/11 attacks. This advertisement is designed to address that issue and show clearly Islam's and the American Muslim community's strong opposition to acts of violence against civilians, whether they are committed by individuals, groups or states," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.

[...] CAIR and AMC in particular would not be chosen as representatives by many Muslims. In fact, there are those in American Muslim communities as well as law enforcement who consider CAIR and the AMC to be part of the problem, because both have been seen as tacitly -- if not explicitly -- supportive of extremist groups guilty of terrorism.

Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of CAIR, refuses to outright condemn Osama bin Laden. "We condemn terrorism, we condemn the attack on the buildings," Hooper said. But why not condemn bin Laden by name, especially after President Bush has now stated that he was clearly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks?

"If Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name," Hooper said. But why the "if" -- why qualify the response? Hooper said he resented the question. And what about prior acts of terror linked to bin Laden? Or that bin Laden has urged Muslims to kill Americans?

Again, Hooper demurred, saying only that he condemns acts of terror.

Both groups also refuse to outright condemn Islamic terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. In fact, leaders from both groups have, in recent years, been quoted defending or exhorting organizations that the U.S. State Department classifies as "foreign terrorist." [...]

CAIR was particularly critical of the conviction of Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman, whom U.S. authorities deemed the ringleader of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and who was convicted with nine followers in October 1995 of conspiring to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel along with other New York City landmarks.

CAIR went so far as to include the court conviction of Abdul-Rahman on a list of "hate crimes against Muslims." And CAIR's founder, Nihad Awad, wrote in the Muslim World Monitor that the World Trade Center trial, which ended in the conviction in 1994 of four Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, was "a travesty of justice." According to Awad -- and despite the confessions of the terrorists from the 1993 attack -- "there is ample evidence indicating that both the Mossad and the Egyptian Intelligence played a role in the explosion." (Awad -- who met with President Bush last week -- has been more circumspect in his comments after this World Trade Center bombing.) [...]

Hooper's comments about Hamas and Hezbollah are even more qualified than they were about bin Laden. "If someone carries out terrorist acts, they should be labeled as a terrorist," he says. "If they don't, they shouldn't." Pressed to address these two terrorist groups by name, Hooper said, "If Hamas kills innocent civilians we condemn them. But I'm not going to condemn legitimate resistance to Israeli occupation."

CAIR, Hooper continues, has never even mentioned the word Hamas as an organization, so why should they start now? But that, of course, doesn't include all the mentions of Hamas that CAIR's leaders have made -- including CAIR founder Awad's 1994 declaration that before the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority he "used to support the PLO," but that now he was "in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO."

Hamas, meanwhile, has claimed credit for the murders of countless Israeli civilians. Middle East scholars believe that Islamic fundamentalists don't consider many victims of terrorist attacks "innocent," which is how they can defend Hamas as not killing innocent people. Hooper, however, refused to answer questions exploring that theory.

"What you're trying to get me to say is the Palestinians don't deserve to live in peace and freedom," Hooper says -- though neither the Palestinians nor Israel had been mentioned. Questions about whether CAIR would condemn organizations by name unequivocally, instead of qualifying the condemnations, were just "word games from the pro-Israel lobby," Hooper said. Instead, Hooper said that the very questions were the problem, and part of a Zionist conspiracy. "This is a game they play," Hooper said, referring to the pro-Israel lobby. "They give me a long list of people to condemn and if you don't give sufficient condemnation you're a terrorist. We would condemn any person or any group that kills innocent civilians. But it's not my duty that when the pro-Israel lobby says 'Jump' I say 'How high?'"

Nothing. Despite what some here will claim, there have been a number of heartfelt and genuine condemnations or repudiations of terrorism by Muslims, and I have posted many of them here on FreeRepublic.

When they don't we bitch when they do we bitch.

I am bitching in this case because this "condemnation" is NOT genuine. See the message I posted immediately following yours. It is my opinion that all Americans should defend and protect genuinely moderate Muslims. Part of this process involves denouncing radical and hypocritical elements of the "wahhabi lobby" like CAIR that attempt to hijack, control and distort the meaning of being an American Muslim.

I tend to agree with your sentiment. However, CAIR exclusively deals in bad faith. They are a front for virulent wahhabist totalitarians who would convert you or kill you. They only intend to keep the lid on the kettle until you are too well cooked to struggle.

I would like to see some grass roots muslim group untainted by terrorist ties say the same thing, and I would welcome it. Some do. But many moderate muslims are silenced by the same Saudi money flowing to about 80% of the mosques in the U.S. Moderation begets you excommunication.

CAIR is a front for Saudi Arabian wahabbists. Al-Quaeda is a front for Saudi Arabian wahabbists. One lies, the other bombs. Wahhabists fund both.

The Bible also prescribes death for idolators. It includes stories both of God himself committing mass killings of idolators (the worshippers of the Golden Calf) and of God ordering humans to do so (wiping out the entire populations of many cities the Israelites captured in the conquest of the "holy land" under Moses and Joshua).

If we followed all the injunctions of the bible we would behave not much different from the most radical of Muslims. Neither do, nor must, all Muslims so treat the Koran.

You are mislead by CAIR's propaganda. When Muslims kill anyone/everyone that is not terrorism. Non-Muslims are not innocent and therefore are legitimate targets for extermination. See how simple it is use the same words but mean something entirely opposite!

"American Muslims condemn all acts of terrorism and we are as outraged as our fellow Americans by atrocities committed in the name of God and our religion."

Ever notice that they are never specific in their condemnations? They never mention any of the terroist groups by name. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In their view, the Israelis. US Govt., could be terroist groups.

I want to see them condemn these groups by name. Anything less is pure PR.

Maybe according to CAIR but i know millions of Muslims fighting for their freedom and equal rights. I don't have much information on CAIR because i'm not a big fan of arab politics nor funded organizations.

I do, however,have an Iran thread which talks about the massive democratic movements there which are in direct conflict against the theocratic regime. The democratic force is still 'muslim' but similar to us being that they're striving for a strong secular movement. The opposition in 'Muslim' Iran are more pro-American than most Christians in Europe.

The 13 opposition TV stations that beam into Iran from California are formed by Muslims and are so pro-American that they make Liberals look like Nazi's.

If we followed all the injunctions of the bible we would behave not much different from the most radical of Muslims. Neither do, nor must, all Muslims so treat the Koran.

Lets put a stop to this lie that keeps getting repeated on these posts. Moral relativists keep pulling out the distinct commands that God gave to the Hebrews to utterly destroy the Canaanites as they came into the Promised Land - and equate it with the passages in the Koran and Hadith that seem to the normal reader to say 'if you can't conver the Infidel (meaning me -and most Americans) - then kill them'. A command issued in a specific place and time 3500 hundred years ago against a specific people vs. an open ended on-going command against 'us'.

Furthermore the Bible passages, being from God, carry a lot of spirtual weight as we can see the picture of the Hebrews entering the Promised Land as the Believers coming to Christ. The Hebrews were told to utterly destroy the Canaanites (idolators, sacrificers of infants, practicioners of bestiality, and an utterly disgusting lot) but they failed to do so. Believers are told to utterly destroy the sin in their lives, and we fail to do so. Both the Hebrews and the Believers need a Saviour and King. I have yet to read what symbolism is represented by the Koran and Hadith's command to provide blood sacrifices to their god.

No, if we followed the 'injunctions of the Bible' we would know that we are sinners whose only hope of Salvation is through the Grace of God. We are to believe on the LORD (and that is LORD - our Sovereign King) Jesus and be 'washed'. Our job is to bring the Gospel. God will Judge (and I'm talking about spiritual/eternal Judgement, not the judgements and the discernments we all need to make in our lives) - not us.

Conversely those that follow the 'injunctions of the Koran/Hadith' probably are compelled to plow airplanes into buildings full of civilians.

Here in Tampa they hold Hamas rallies, and then same scumbags {al arian and friends} have the gall to show up to peace rallies! . Oh and by the way Hamas took responsability for the bus bomb in Isreal the other day, that murdered an innocent AMERICAN teenaged girl. REMEMBER ALL MUSLIMS LIE!, ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL, ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION, BUT A CULT!

Nowhere in the Gospels of Jesus Christ, is there any verses such as ;"Jesus {Muhammed} is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbeleivers, but merciful to one another" as it states in the Surah 48:29....nice try though, now go get a copy of the Quoran, AND READ IT!

Ibrahim Hooper says the campaign is designed to show that Muslims are everyday Americans. "Well we are trying to show that American Muslims are ordinary people," he said. "They are doctors, students, mothers, bus drivers, the checkout person at a grocery store might be a Muslim nowadays and that the vast majority of Muslims will live and die throughout history and never come close to an act of political violence or instability.

Hooper continued, "And each of them thru contributions made at mosques scattered throughout America, contribute money to the Muslim outreach efforts led by Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda, and numerous other organizations designed to help infidels choose between death and conversion to Islam."

35
posted on 03/08/2003 12:47:56 AM PST
by spodefly
(This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)

Amir Taheri (Iranian journalist and dissident, who has denounced "shaheeds" as murderers in the Arab press, and led Iranians in a counter-protest at the recent London "peace" rally)? There are a number of other (lieing?) Muslims represented by Taheri's PR agent, Benador Associates, listed here along with (lieing?) non-Muslims like James Woolsey, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Dennis Prager & Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Khalid Durán (who writes articles with Daniel Pipes, and did much of the leg work for Steve Emerson's American Jihad)?

Sorry, that's barely a beginning, but I tire quickly of responding to such stupid shiite. Your "logic" is no different from saying that Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn musta been a liar because he was from the USSR.

Anyone that professes to be a beleiver in the Quoran, is indeed evil, since the Quoran professes evil. Just as anyone professing a beleif Hitler, can be resonably called pro Nazi. Hope the concept is'nt too confusing for you.

It behooves all those who are interested in the worlds conflicts to at least read the Quoran. Any open minded investigation of the Quoran can only lead any objective person to come to the conclusion, that Islam is indeed evil, that Islam is steeped with massive contradictions bordering on the preposterous { like Muhammad saying Allah gave the law to Moses 10 Commandments, yet other verses of the Quoran spew rhetoric, such as murder of unbelievers, theft of unbelievers wealth I.E. Booty, and deception}. All concepts in direct opposition to the 10 Commandments. Now that Islam is being more and more exposed in the west, the Muslim will now be forced to either abandon his cultish religion, have to amend his cultish religion, or the Muslim will be dismissed as cultish lunatic.

A "profession of belief" in the Quoran (or the Bible, or any other given scripture) is manifestly (as a fact of history) compatible with a multitude of religious/cultural systems, slants and attitudes. None of these books contain any injunction that is immune from transformation and redirection by the interpretation of the individual believer or by the community of belief. The assumption that any scripture (sufficiently rich to support a durable religious tradition) woodenly dictates the characteristics and character of the religion attached to it is ahistorical and counterfactual (and stupid).

If we followed all the injunctions of the bible we would behave not much different from the most radical of Muslims.

Respectfully, I think you oversimplify. Did the God of the Bible make the blanket assertion, for all time, that the Israelites (or anyone else) were to "kill the enemies of god, wherever you find them"? No. But Allah of the Koran did.

It may seem to you irrelevant for me to state that the God of the Bible ordered war to be made upon very specific Canaanite cities as the Israelites were moving in and taking over. From God's point of view, He had just spent 400 years separating for Himself a "people" by isolating them from those same Canaanites, in a very segregated condition, down in Egypt. He had revealed Himself to them and wanted to preserve them as His "peculiar treasure". It was thus necessary (if the previous 400 years were to count for something), to prevent the mixing of truth with error (especially since the error, the forbidden fruit, can often be perceived as being "more fun").

But, critics charge, how can this justify killing massive numbers of people? It never seems to occur to the critics that the Canaanites had heard of the miraculous God of the Israelites and His exploits in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness. It seems reasonable to me that such powerful reality, on the ground, should seem so irresistable as to cause one to say, "How do I join up?" Rahab, for instance, had heard, and she wisely asked to be included. But no. City and tribe after city and tribe decided to try and fight against the Israelites, and, thus, against their God.

Critics might also be prone to ask why a "pure Israel" or a "chosen people" would be necessary or even just. I hear it all the time. I sense that some modern Jews are even a little apologetic about the concept. But, as a Christian, I understand, now, that the whole point was to nurture a people, via a covenant, through which, eventually, to send God's Son, the Savior, to redeem the fallen world.

So, far from prescribing death to idolators, or summarily ordering His followers to go out and make war against all "enemies" of God, the God of the Bible intervened in history at very specific, crucial moments in order to accomplish the Redemption He set out to accomplish immediately after The Fall of Adam and Eve. There is no equivalency here, between the God of the Bible and the Allah of the Koran.

Lastly, just as the Canaanites of old would have been better off joining in worshipping the One who appeared in pillar of cloud and fire and sent bread from heaven and brought forth water from rocks, so, today, would the modern Canaanites be better joining the returned Israelites (if not in religion, then in government), whose God not only preserved them through 2000 years of being scattered, but also has preserved them through 55 years of constant siege, keeping their perfect 5-0 record unblemished. But will they ever see the light? We'll see. But if history is any indicator, the heathen will continue to rage.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.